Slightly off topic... NFL in LA.

This post is not in reference to any articles or links.
It's just my outlook on the topic and as they say "actions speak louder that words!"

The way I see it is that IF (and that's a Big "IF") NFL does indeed return to LA, I don't see it happening for at least ten years.
These are the reasons...

Rams and Raiders...
As we all know, they left LA after the 96 season. If LA could not provide for two NFL teams, that would be one thing but why didn't they let the Raiders leave and look into building up to keep the Rams? After all, that was their original team.
Bigger picture to look at...
Rams leaving LA for St. Louis. Obviously St. Louis had been looking to bring NFL back to it's city BUT LA is suppose to be the ideal place for any NFL franchise.
Raiders return to the city they left for another old stadium that is hardly an upgrade from the LA Coliseum.Those actions speak pretty loud if you ask me!!!

Cardinals...
I don't believe that Bill Bidwill's original intention was to stay in Arizona (after leaving St. Louis.) Several times, the Cardinals were suppose to move to LA. For years, all Arizona fans would see in their local newspaper (regarding the Cardinals) is how the plan in LA is coming along.
It was once rumored that there was a plan for them to swap names with St. Louis after the move so the Rams were back in LA and the Cardinals were back in St. Louis (keep in mind, I said "rumored.")
If LA could have provided a new stadium (or plans for one), he would have loaded the moving truck without batting an eyelash.Not to mention that LA and NFL had PLENTY of time to make this work!!!

Seahawks...
That was another team that was supposed to move to LA shortly after the departure of the Rams and Raiders but got absolutely no where. It got a lot of media attention for maybe two months but then came the stadium plans in Seattle.

Saints...
If anyone were moving to LA (after the other attempts failed), I think Saints were the top candidate. In a messed up way, Katrina kept that from happening because a move after that terrible tragedy would have given NFL a horrible image.
Though I think their recent success has saved them too. After making it to the NFC Championship for their first time in franchise history, that got them a five year contract to play in the Super Dome. If they had another 2-3 win season, the contract wouldn't have happened.Though they will still need a new stadium eventually.

Then there's the teams that need new homes...

Raiders...
They're stuck in the Oakland Coliseum until Al Davis croaks. After that time, MAYBE Oakland or another city will talk to them (under new ownership.)

Bills...
Last I heard (which was about 3 years ago) that the owner may be forced to put the Bills up for sale but will make sure it's sold to someone who plans to keep them in Buffalo.

Vikings...
In the works of a new stadium and will most likely stay in Minnesota.

49ers...
Will still be the San Francisco 49ers.

Chargers...
Spanos will own the Southern California region for a looooong time and he knows it!! That's why he's going farther than most other owners would to stay where he is!!!

BOTTOM LINE...
I think if NFL was as serious about putting a team back in LA... it would have happened a long time ago (especially with an open expansion available.) Right now, the NFL wants every city to have a newly renovated stadium. LA is leverage.

The way I do see NFL returning to LA is if they open new expansions. Right now, there are eight divisions and thirty two teams.
It might make sense to someday add eight teams. One expansion in each division and forty teams all together.
If that is to happen, I don't see it happening till at least ten years.

With that said... LA has ALL the leverage!!!
NFL wants a team there, LA says "YOU MAKE IT HAPPEN!!!"
Team, Stadium, Location, and everything else.

Goodell isn't as desperate to get a NFL team in LA, actually I think he said that they have no intention right now. Goodell appears to have more interest in expanding the game globally more than anything else.

And the league is very happy with 32 teams, it's a perfect balance, anymore teams and like others said the talent level drops off significantly and so does the NFL game.

If LA gets a team it'll be someone relocating. I see it possibly being the Raiders after Al dies.

Goodell isn't as desperate to get a NFL team in LA, actually I think he said that they have no intention right now. Goodell appears to have more interest in expanding the game globally more than anything else.

And the league is very happy with 32 teams, it's a perfect balance, anymore teams and like others said the talent level drops off significantly and so does the NFL game.

If LA gets a team it'll be someone relocating. I see it possibly being the Raiders after Al dies.

Click to expand...

I completely agree. I think 32 teams is fine!!!
I like the idea of 40 teams about as much as I like NFL games in Europe.

If new expansions happen, that all comes back to the "Big IF" NFL returns to LA. That's the only way I see it happening.

When Al Davis croaks, the Raiders will get a new stadium (some where.) The question will be... "How far will politicians in Oakland be willing to go to keep them there?"
Right now, Al knows damn well what the answer would be if he asked for a new stadium or threatened to move the team. IMO, I don't think any city would be willing to take them under Al Davis.

They can find eight cities willing to do it though.
Well, six if the two team plan in LA works out (which of course will be completely funded by NFL.)

At this moment right now, I can say "I don't like it" but ten years from now, I might thing differently.

Click to expand...

I got to thinking about your post and I think that the NFL could expand to 40 teams without a major drop off in talent quality. Would an expansion increase the television revenue enough to offset the sharing of that revenue stream? The teams share television revenue equally and the stadium gate 60/40 home/visitor and the home team keeps all of the club and box revenue. Goddell is focused on increasing the global television audience because that is the big money.

Anyway, here are the metropolitan areas that I think could easily support a team or an additional team.

I got to thinking about your post and I think that the NFL could expand to 40 teams without a major drop off in talent quality. Would an expansion increase the television revenue enough to offset the sharing of that revenue stream? The teams share television revenue equally and the stadium gate 60/40 home/visitor and the home team keeps all of the club and box revenue. Goddell is focused on increasing the global television audience because that is the big money.

Anyway, here are the metropolitan areas that I think could easily support a team or an additional team.

You still have to look at it realistically .. I'm purely looking at this as a fan base ..

NY .. no way they add another team. They have 2 there already.
LA .. they need to get 1 before they add a 2nd.
Chicago .. possibility but the team will always be 2nd to the Bears.
Dallas .. no way in hell. Cowboys rule there.
Miami .. no way .. Dolphin, even with there 1 win season still are the team.
Riverside .. maybe. But their financials aren't much better than San Diego's.
San Juan .. I could see that .. baseball before NFL though.
San Jose .. I see the Raiders moving their eventually once Davis is out of the picture.
Portland .. never understood why there isn't more talk of one here.
Sacramento .. maybe but 9er/Raider area.
Orlando .. I could see that but does the NFL want another team in Florida?
San Antonio .. city is hungry for one (or so it seems). I think if the Oilers were still in Houston, I think that this would not even be a possibility because of the proximity.
Las Vegas .. yes but I think the gambling thing is still a real issue.
Columbus .. I suppose
Milwaukee .. really? Packer land. Up until a few years ago, they played half their games in the city.
Virginia Beach .. Possibly.
Providence .. This is complete Patriot territory now .. seriously doubt it.
Austin .. only if San Antonio doesn't get one. How big is the town when UT is not in session?
Louisville .. could see that. But I think it might be a stretch.
Richmond .. Possibly. But any area in Virginia, you are competing with the Skins.
Hartford .. doubtful. Seems to have a big Patriot fan base.
Oklahoma .. they certainly seem to making some moves in recent years (particularly in the NBA) so I guess it is possible.
Birmingham .. conceivable I suppose. But mostly a college football area, isn't it?
Salt Lake City .. I could see that .. would be fun to go to a stadium that is either dry or with 3/2 beer.

The NFL has been trying for years to get an NFL team back into LA, but LA could give a shet about it. It there was a great desire to have a team in LA, by the people in LA, we would be hearing about it.

Many groups have stepped up to try and get a team there, but all have failed. A team was gift wrapped by the NFL for the LA market and they could not get it together and build a stadium for the team.

That team became the Texans.

LA doesn't care. Why does the NFL keep trying put a team in a city that could give a ****? :icon_shrug:

Just don't see how it could happen. Plus, there are many areas like Chicago and Green Bay that draw from hundreds of miles around. New York already has two teams that play in the same stadium! LA just doesn't care. Maybe another team in Texas, but I don't see another one in CA. The Mid-West is College football country. I just don't see where the support is gonna come from

Just don't see how it could happen. Plus, there are many areas like Chicago and Green Bay that draw from hundreds of miles around. New York already has two teams that play in the same stadium! LA just doesn't care. Maybe another team in Texas, but I don't see another one in CA. The Mid-West is College football country. I just don't see where the support is gonna come from

Click to expand...

But NFL does.
LA has the leverage and is playing their cards right... "You want it, you make it happen. The team, stadium, location and everything else!!!"

The problem as I see it, is the NFL's arrogance. They insist that public money be part of the mix for a team and stadium. Several LA sources have put stadium deals on the table that used no taxpayer funds, but the NFL said no.

The NFL is used to backwater towns like Oakland and St. Louis (no offense if you are from there) paying ridiculous fees, PSL's, etc. to get a team in the city. The people in LA would love to have another team, but they aren't going to pay any additional tax money to do so. Nor should they have to, IMO.

I fretted for some time about not having a team in LA, but the more I stewed over the NFL's God-complex, the less I cared if it ever got done. The NFL needs to get over themselves.